Asylum seeker dilemmas

October 28, 2009

The way the Government and Opposition are dealing with the asylum seeker issue raises serious questions. Not only about the way we deal with a humanitarian crisis but about our long term vision for Australia. People seem to forget that white Australians were the first boat people.

A Lowy Institute poll, reported here, shows that 76 per cent of Australians are concerned about boat people. Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey says the boats could be carrying terrorists (“I would probably put quite a very narrow shade of odds”). That’s despite the fact that those who have been convicted here of terrorism-linked activities came here by other means.

In my opinion these people fleeing ethnic violence in Sri Lanka are courageous. They are prepared to take risks, many are enterprising and all are determined to build new lives for themselves. That could well be the kind of spirit this country needs. Speaking as someone who came from a family of refugees who contributed to the economic and cultural life of this country, I’ll say this: if the boats contain potential terrorists, they could also be carrying future business leaders.

All this plays in to a much broader debate we have been having about whether we should be increasing Australia’s population, something that some claim will create new industries and drive economic growth. Others will say we cannot afford it. It’s an issue that drew plenty of comments when I blogged it about here. Any immigration scheme requires us to manage our new arrivals effectively, and it also requires public acceptance about who we take in. And the angst over a handful of asylum seekers suggests we are a long way from achieving that.

The Human Rights Commissioner Catherine Branson has accused the Government of mistreating boat people, and activist lawyer and QC Julian Burnside writes that this is starting to look awfully like Tampa and that in any case, it’s a bad beat up. “This sort of scare-mongering overlooks a few important facts,’’ Burnside writes. “First, the number of unauthorised arrivals this year so far is about 1500. Australia's annual intake of permanent migrants is about 185,000. That's about 500 people per day who arrive in this country to settle here permanently. So the unauthorised arrivals represent about three days' worth of orthodox migration. Putting it another way, about 300,000 babies will be born in Australia this year. In less than two days, new-born babies will increase our population more than this year's boat-people will. Can anyone sensibly say that this is a threat to our resources, our community or our values?”

Bernard Keane at Crikey also puts it in context. As he says, Australia attracts disproportionately fewer refugees because you can’t get here in a truck or by foot. “Our program accounts for less than a tenth of one percent of the world’s refugees. Our population is 0.3 per cent of that of the world. Our GDP is 1.6 per cent of the world’s. If we accepted as many refugees per person as the conservative Government of Canada, we’d take over 20,000 a year.”

While much of Burnside’s focus is on the Opposition, Sydney Morning Herald political editor Peter Hartcher makes the excellent point that Rudd’s “tough but humane” policy is all politics. “Instead of trying to win public support by setting out his positive case, he seeks only to confound the Opposition with a negative counter. Why? Because Rudd is terrified of angering outer-suburban anti-immigrant voting blocs. In his overarching political positioning, Rudd seeks to dominate not just the centre but also the centre-left and, wherever possible, the centre-right. And where he can't win the centre-right, he wants to at least protect himself against attack. This is the reason for the rhetorical emphasis on the "hardline" element of his policy. Rudd wants to keep the centre-left element of his constituency happy with the ‘humane’ part, but he also wants to deflect attack from the right.” Columnist Shaun Carney says that this government is not talking straight.

Still, the Lowy poll shows how politically loaded this issue can be. That poll explains why politicians are playing with words and treating us like children.

To condemn all the attacks on the asylum seekers as racist is wrong and simplistic but I do wonder how much of it comes from the xenophobia that you get in an island nation without borders touching other countries. Perhaps we should think back to one of the things that makes me proud to be an Australian, the willingness to give people a “fair go” and not put up with bulldust.

What’s your view of the asylum seeker debate? How has the Government handled it? What do you think of the Tuckey claim? Should we do more, or should we have tougher rules? And how does that fit in with your views about the population debate?

Post a comment

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Recent comments

DanielAugustus

October 28, 2009

10:55 AM

Yes, the boats could contain potential terrorists, and they could also be carrying future business leaders. However, what gives you or any politician or public servant the right to steal our taxes, from us hard working lowly paid Australians, to use on your own causes even when the majority does not support or want them. Far better the funds be spent on providing those esential services that government is suppossed to provide, but seems incapable of doing, such as Law and order, health, road maintenance and affordable long term housing. Leave charity to us the people. If we feel it is a a good cause we will give generously.

Gordon of Hobart

October 28, 2009

10:59 AM

The Howard years made me deeply angry and ashamed to be an Australian, especially his treatment of indigenous and boat people. I was hoping that a Labour governemt would take a humane and decisive lead on this issue but they appear to be stumbling badly and showing no leadership at all.
Boat people account for less than 1% of our annual immigrants but we insist on treating them worse than our live sheep exports, rather than the object of our sympathy and concern. Let us hope that we here in Australia are never in need of help, refuge or shelter, because we certainly wont get any from our Asian neighbours. We definitely wont deserve any.
I believe the poll results are only people reflecting back the political rhetoric of our leaders.
"I beleive these boat people are terrorists!"
"Are you afraid of terrorists?"
"Yes!"......
and so on down the road to fascism.

Doggy

October 28, 2009

03:32 PM

What about all the people who want to come to Australia, they do the right thing, apply to our embassys fill in the forms and wait to be processed only to see people in boats jump the line,burn their papers and claim to be in danger. It must be soul destroying for the people waiting.

Anon E Mouse

October 29, 2009

01:48 PM

Doggy,

Have you ever considered the fact that most of these people are coming from places that would not make it easy for them to run to the nearest embassy to fill in these forms?
In the case of the Tamil asylum seekers they are fleeing a war zone in Sri Lanka and violence that would make your blood curdle in with fear and disgust. They are an oppressed minority in Sri Lanka by their government and deserve the help they so need, even if it means asylum in Australia.
The reaction from Tuckey is not surprising at all. We are of course talking about Wilson "Ironbar" Tuckey, who was convicted of assaulting an Aboriginal male in 1967 with a length of steel cable when he worked as a Publican. I cannot take this racist under-educated individual seriously and neither should the Australian public. I mean seriously, the man cannot make a comment in Parliament without being expelled from the house.
In a world where money moves across borders and seas more freely than human beings do we should be setting an example by acting contrary to this absurdity that seems to be the norm. Let them land!

Comments Terms & Conditions

When posting comments on our blogs, you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.
Comments that are offensive, defamatory, unsuitable or that breach any aspects of the terms and conditions will be deleted.

Leon Gettler is a contributor to The Age, specialising on management issues. His interests include business ethics, corporate governance and the intricacies of the US Sarbanes-Oxley ruling. He is the author of two books, including Organisations Behaving Badly: A Greek tragedy of corporate pathology, which focuses on the forces that lead smart executives to make dumb decisions.